About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
they did concord arabia because it was more productive to fight in the name of god and saud is a that symbiotic relationship has existed ever since. people live literally behind walls most people's homes are surrounded by walls 10 or 12 feet high and they lived inside higher walls figuratively. they are bound, i'd like a mummy in the bindings of tradition and religion so there is a rigidity that keeps people from having much independence or individualism. but the internet and social media and satellite tv are penetrating those walls and a big way. so young people and 60 percent of the population is sunday -- under 20 years of age. so without knowing an impoverished saudi arabia the development was done in the '70s and '80s and as the population has exploded many services have deteriorated. young people do not have gratitude to the royal family they say why haven't you done more? they hear through the media and other versions of islam islam, so they are also learning to question as well as communicate witches a new scene in saudi arabia. country exists on the three pillars of
exterminated, driven off the land, concord and etc. in a next question, over there? >> one thing that i noticed is that many grand parents raising their children. their children's children, excuse me. their grandchildren. my mother was 42 years old when she had a, which was almost an impossibly unfashionable age. i noted the same two things. the older the parent was, the grandparent was, i mean, in many instances, the children lined up almost with a generation of perspective alternatives. because of the grand parents. they grew up more racist. they grew up more superstitious. they grew up in a way that did not suit them for the generation they were entering. that is the one caution that i have when i look at what you are suggesting. >> sure. all of you parents of young children, you have to figure out how much you want to turn over to the grand parents of the children. in many cases, many of my friends are utterly thrilled to have their children looked after by their grandparents. other of my friends say that there is no way. so i am not making a universal recommendation. i am a merely that gra
their will notably by being exterminated, driven a land, concord, dispossessed. >> i have a huge grease. one thing i noted when i lived in hawaii for 20 years is that many grandparents who are raising their children, their children's children, their grandchildren and my mother was 42 when she had us, which was almost an impossibility and fashionable age. i noted the same two things that the older the parent wise in many -- the grim parentless in many instances, the children wound up almost losing a generation of perspective alternatives because of their grandparents. they grew up more racist frankly. they grew up more superstitious and they grew up with an ethos that didn't necessarily suit them for the generation they're entering. that's the one caution i have what i look at which you're suggesting. >> sure, fair enough. all you parents of young children have got to figure out, how much caregiving do you want to turn over to your parents, grandparents of the children? in many cases among my friends, many are utterly thrilled to have their children looked after by their grandparents and others say n
, driven off the land, concord, dispossessed. >> i have a huge voice. one thing that i noted when i lived for 20 years is that many parents who are raising their children, their children's children -- excuse me, their grandchildren in effect. my mother was 42 when she had as, which has almost been possibly a fashionable age. i noted the same two things that the older the parent was -- the grandparent was in many instances, the children wound up almost losing a generation of prospective alternative because of their grandparents grew up more racist frankly. they grew up more superstitious and they grew up with the kind of eat those that didn't necessarily suit down for the generation they were and during. that's the one caution i had when i look at what was suggesting. >> fair enough. all of you parents of young children have to figure out, how much caregiving do you want to turn over to your parent, grandparents and children. in many cases among my friends, many friends are utterly thrilled to have their children but dr. becker and parent and others of my friends say there is no way that m
to think of battles like lexington and concord where the yankees slithered on their bellies and shot at the redcoats from behind trees and rocks in the ways that the redcoats to be ungentlemanly and not quite cricket. now these were, no doubt, effective tactics. but in the end what's striking to me about the studying the american revolution is the extent to which it was decided not so much by what happened on the battlefield, but what actually happened in the house of parliament in the commons in england. when you read conventional accounts, if i may use that word, of the american revolution they usually conclude with the battle of yorktown in 1781 at which lord cornwallis surrendered about 7,000 troops to general washington, and there is no doubt this was a massive setback for the british war effort. but the fact remains that even surrendering 7,000 troops to washington, the british still had tens of thousands more troops in north america. and they could have summoned tens of thousands more troops from other parts of the empire if they had decided to do so. but they were not able to
, concord and stability, that they may administer the government without failure. direct their counsel according to that which is good and well-pleasing in your sight. may it be said of them that they performed the duties of their office faithfully and impartially. bless each individual present here today, for by blessing the individual you have blessed this nation. to you be the glory. in your most holy name i pray. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c february 27, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable william m. cowan, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presidin
a concordance with you, and you'll give us the status of a separate country. the van can is a separate country. it doesn't have any normal citizens, you know, no women citizens. it's got post offices and other signs of the government, but it's a fake government. it's a fantasy government. you know, it's kind of a disneyland government. [laughter] nobodiments to take -- nobody wants to take it away. my wife refused to go to the vatican after the first few times. it's got beautiful treasures in there, but it's a great fortress is great treasures inside, and everywhere, paintings of the donation of con stan tine, the mystical giving of worldly power to the pope, painting on chairs of the bishop peter, which he never was, coats of arms of all of the noble popes who took over in the renaissance, and she said, you know, what could be more against the gospel of jesus than this earthly trumpeting of power and pride? it's not going to go away, but as i say, we really should start treating it with the disrespect it deserves. [laughter] >> is it possible for a church or religion to have structure with hi
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)